Skip to main content
Glama

지체일수 불산입 사유

delay_exemption_guide
Read-onlyIdempotent

지체일수에서 빼는(불산입) 사유 지도 — estimate_delay_penalty가 정하지 않는 부분.

"이 지연은 우리 책임이 아닌데 지체상금을 물어야 하나", "동절기 공사중지 기간도
지체일수인가", "관급자재가 늦게 와서 늦어졌다" 같은 질문에 쓰라.

**이 도구는 해당 여부를 판정하지 않는다.** 일반조건 문언 자체가 "계약담당공무원이
인정할 때"를 요건으로 두므로 판단은 발주기관 몫이다. 도구가 주는 것은 셋이다 —
①예규에 있는 사유 목록과 원문 인용 ②각 사유가 인정되려면 **확정돼야 할 사실**
(must_establish — 사용자와 하나씩 확인하라) ③기재부·행안부 회신 선례.

쓰는 순서: 이 도구로 사유를 좁힌다 → must_establish를 사용자와 확인한다 →
불산입 일수가 정해지면 estimate_delay_penalty의 excluded_days에 넣어 다시 계산한다.
(sw_requirement_change는 해당 일수의 **1/2**만 넣는다 — 예규가 절반만 빼준다.)

**ground 목록은 계약유형과 무관한 전체 열거다** — 어떤 사유는 일반조건 계열(공사/물품/
용역)뿐 아니라 계약유형까지 좁혀야 한다(예: sw_requirement_change는 같은 조건 제49조의
소프트웨어사업 전용이라 용역 계열이어도 운송·보관 계약에는 해당할 수 없다). 해당하지
않는 조합은 `ground_not_applicable`로 거부하고 가능한 사유를 알려준다. 목록 조회에서
이렇게 빠진 사유는 `grounds_excluded_by_contract_kind`에 사유와 함께 실린다 —
조용히 사라지지 않는다.

주의: `quote_truncated: true`인 항목은 우리가 회수한 조문 인용이 중간에서 끊긴 것이다
— 그대로 인용하지 말고 search_references로 전문을 확인하라. 끊긴 문장을 이어서
지어내면 그것이 이 서버가 막으려는 오답이다.

Args:
    contract_kind: estimate_delay_penalty와 같은 값. 일반조건 계열(공사/물품/용역)로
        매핑되며, 실제로 계약서에 편입된 일반조건이 진실원임을 응답이 경고한다
    ground: 특정 사유 하나만 상세히 볼 때. 생략하면 그 계약유형의 전체 목록

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groundNo
contract_kindYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral context: the tool never adjudicates (judgment is the owner's), it rejects non-applicable combinations via ground_not_applicable and lists excluded grounds via grounds_excluded_by_contract_kind so they 'don't disappear silently,' and it warns against fabricating continuations of truncated citations. The openWorldHint is consistent with the full-enumeration-plus-exclusion behavior described. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Long but dense — every paragraph carries distinct value appropriate to a domain-specific legal guide. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical 'does not determine' disclaimer, then numbered deliverables, then the integration workflow, contract-kind narrowing, and the truncated-quote safety warning. Bold markers, numbered items, and parenthetical specifics keep it scannable; nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, the three output categories, usage order and sibling integration, partial-exclusion rule (sw_requirement_change 1/2), contract-type narrowing and grounds_excluded_by_contract_kind behavior, and the quote_truncated safety advisory. The response field names it mentions (ground_not_applicable, grounds_excluded_by_contract_kind, quote_truncated) give the agent enough to interpret returns despite no formal output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry full weight — and does. contract_kind is explained as 'same value as estimate_delay_penalty,' mapped to the general-conditions series, with a warning that the incorporated conditions are the source of truth. ground is explained as optional, for viewing one reason in detail, with default full-list behavior. The body additionally clarifies subtle enum semantics (e.g., sw_requirement_change applies only to software contracts and contributes 1/2 of days), fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific purpose: a guide to reasons for excluding (불산입) delay days, explicitly positioned as 'the part estimate_delay_penalty does not determine.' Names the three concrete deliverables (regulation reason list with citations, must_establish facts to verify, and ministry precedents) and distinguishes itself from the sibling estimate_delay_penalty. The opening use-case questions ('이 지연은 우리 책임이 아닌데...') make the intent unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Extremely explicit: provides a step-by-step usage order (narrow reasons → verify must_establish with user → feed excluded_days into estimate_delay_penalty), gives the exact question types this tool answers, and names the alternative (search_references) for quote_truncated cases. Also states what the tool does NOT do — determine applicability, which belongs to the contracting officer — preventing misuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct role: decision-rules, price adjustment, delay penalties, exemption guidance, statute retrieval, case retrieval, and three specialized search tools. search_law, search_references, and search_cases look similar at first glance, but their descriptions clearly separate statutory text, full reference corpus, and caselaw/interpretation. The main ambiguity is between search_law and search_references for mixed practical queries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_price_adjustment, decide_contract_method, estimate_delay_penalty, get_law_article, search_references. delay_exemption_guide is the one name that leads with a noun rather than a verb, and get_law_article_asof adds an as-of suffix that is not mirrored elsewhere, but the overall style remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools are well-scoped for a Korean public-contract advisory server: three rule calculators, one exemption guide, paired search/retrieval tools, an as-of law lookup, and a feedback/question-log tool. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main contract lifecycle well: selecting contract method, price escalation, delay penalty calculation, and delay exemption guidance, backed by statutes, references, and caselaw retrieval. Some narrower lifecycle aspects such as termination, sanctions, or post-award administration are only reachable through general search rather than dedicated decision tools, which is a minor gap agents can work around.